Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ227 | |
| 2 | Ṁ218 | |
| 3 | Ṁ179 | |
| 4 | Ṁ115 | |
| 5 | Ṁ76 |
@egroj But now you've just provided an incentive for someone to write up a serious argument against it!
@IsaacKing it has a good citation and there is one more that can be added, very unlikely (less than 8% 😄) that an editor will not revert the change if someone tries to remove it. I'm assuming the description has already been fulfilled ("consistently for at least 2 weeks"), so all is needed is to be there by the end of the month
There’s also a passing mention in a piece on Harvard’s Nieman Lab, but I would not push it yet without a bit stronger third source, because transparent reference farming – using anything tangentially relevant – can annoy some editors.
Looking at the edit history of this Wikipedia page it looks like Manifold was last added in March to be deleted for not being notable a week later. Looks like a number of prediction markets based on crypto keep getting added and removed with this argument. This market seems a bit overconfident given that history and Wikipedia sometimes being quite unreasonable about this kind of thing.
@catfromdevnull The currently listed ones (disclaimer: I only checked a couple) are backed up by references to Nature and Vox. It’s basically fully, 0% vs 100%, conditional on Manifold getting anything close to that kind of coverage.
@ForrestTaylor If the edit war is someone trying to force it onto the page last-minute, resolves NO. If it's been on the page for a while with no issue and the edit war is someone trying to remove it last-minute, resolves YES.
Basically, I'm not going to let someone vandalize the page in order to manipulate this market against Wikipedia editor consensus.